Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1577

Landmark Group Australia Pty Ltd v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWLEC 1577

The development's floor space ratio exceeds the allowed maximum when calculated according to the LEP, including breezeways as internal floor space. However, deletion of units 9 and 10 is unnecessary as the bulk and scale of the building remain unchanged, their amenity is acceptable, and the modification will not cause adverse environmental impact. Accordingly, the appeal is upheld and consent modified to allow units 9 and 10.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Deemed Refusal to Modify Development Consent
Outcome
Appeal upheld
Legal Topics
['modification of Development Consent' 'calculation of Floor Space Ratio' 'design Quality of Residential Development' 'affordable Housing']
['planning and Environment'] ['modification of Development Consent' 'calculation of Floor Space Ratio' 'design Quality of Residential Development' 'affordable Housing']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Deemed Refusal to Modify Development Consent

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether two units should be deleted from development due to floor space ratio calculations' 'Whether the calculation of floor space ratio was correct with respect to inclusion or exclusion of breezeway and corridor areas' 'Whether the amenity of the units (9 and 10) is adequate if restored']

Ratio Decidendi

The development's floor space ratio exceeds the allowed maximum when calculated according to the LEP, including breezeways as internal floor space. However, deletion of units 9 and 10 is unnecessary as the bulk and scale of the building remain unchanged, their amenity is acceptable, and the modification will not cause adverse environmental impact. Accordingly, the appeal is upheld and consent modified to allow units 9 and 10.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld

Orders

  • ['The appeal is upheld.' 'Modification Application to delete condition 2Avi) (requiring deletion of Units 9 and 10) is approved.' 'Development Consent is subject to consolidated, modified conditions as per Annexure B.' 'Exhibits (except certain plans) are returned.']